• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support school choice?

Do you support school choice?

  • Total voters
    88

Isn't the purpose of taxpayer funding of education to insure that poor children have a comparable chance at a decent education to that which wealthier children have?

And doesn't the principle that you just defended defeat this purpose?

If all we're going to gain by having taxpayer-funded schooling is to tie the quality of a child's education to the income level of the neighborhood in which that child lives, then why don't we just do away with taxpayer-funded schools entirely, cut out the government middleman, and leave it to parents to pay directly for their own children's schooling out of their own incomes (which would then no longer be reduced by the amount that government taxes them to pay for education)?
 

Some people's religion doesn't agree with evolution, or with teaching sex ed to minors. Some people's religion would have them believing in creationism and abstinence. It would be wrong to deny people the right to act upon their religious beliefs in a private setting such as a private school.

Even if we don't agree with those beliefs. Such is the nature of freedom.
 

So good schools are good because they are supported by a wealthier tax base,making more money available for them?



Peter Grimm said:
The good schools are only good because the kids perform better and the environment is safer and better for both teachers and kids.

The kids perform better because they come from solid families.
Click to expand...

So good schools are good because the kids come from better families?

Which is it? make up your mind?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So good schools are good because they are supported by a wealthier tax base,making more money available for them?





So good schools are good because the kids come from better families?

Which is it? make up your mind?
Click to expand...

Both play a factor. That the kids come from good, stable families is more important than the money, however. I believe that kids that come from a good family situation are more likely to be well-behaved and to perform better in school.

What I meant in the first instance was that schools in wealthier neighborhoods have better facilities, supplies, and tend to attract better teachers.
 
I support school choice 100% the problem is the crooked unions will never allow it.
 

But previously, you said…

…in effect, claiming that the good schools are that way because the area that they serve has a higher tax base, generating more revenue to support a better school. And further, you're OK with this, and opposed to undermining it, because those residents in the good neighborhoods are paying a premium in taxes to support their good schools, and it's unfair to offer the services of their good schools to poor students whose parents aren't paying the same higher taxes, and it would hurt the property values in the good, high-tax-paying neighborhood.

So, from where is the money to come to pay for the improvements that you want to be made to the bad schools? By your own claims, they are the way they are because there isn't the tax base to support them being any better.
 

Sometimes, the apple cart needs upsetting.

Both you and I identify as “Very Conservative”. But I am beginning to wonder, now, if you might be a Poe. In this thread, you seem to be rather openly exhibiting much of the same exaggerated bigotry and elitism of which liberals like to falsely accuse conservatives; you seem to be intentionally playing the liberal stereotype of a conservative, rather than expressing what most true conservatives would accept and understand as conservative values.
 

I don't think there's ever been an opportunity for a fair comparison.

Private schools start out at a very strong disadvantage in the marketplace. Public schools are “free”. Parents can send their children there, without any cost beyond the taxes that they already have to pay regardless of whether they have children or where they send those children for schooling.

To send a child to a private school, the parents have to pay the full cost of that school's tuition, on top of what they still have to pay in taxes to support the public school that they are choosing not to use.

Private schools are not going to be able to get any students, other than those whose parents can afford the additional tuition, and are convinced that it is worth the cost to send their children there.

The market is heavily skewed in favor of the public schools.

Really, that's the whole point of this discussion—whether the market should somehow be leveled to give private schools a fair chance to compete on even terms with public schools. Only when the market is thus leveled will we ever really be able to see for sure which kind of school can really outperform the other.
 

One exception to freedom that modern society has decided upon is that minors will be forced to be educated until the age of 18. The basis of this education will be reading, writing, mathematics, the sciences, etc. Religion is allowed in private schools, but it should not be allowed in place of science, instead only in addition to it.
 

It seems like you're trying to catch me contradicting myself, but I've been consistent this entire thread. There isn't one factor alone that makes a school "good" or "bad." It's a combination of a lot of things.

First and most importantly, the right kind of kids make a good school. Kids who come from good family situations are more likely to get good grades, more likely to stay out of trouble, and more likely to be a good influence on other kids. This is backed by statistics, it's not an opinion.

Second, good teachers make a good school. The best teachers are drawn to safe neighborhoods where the kids are well-behaved and teachable. They are also drawn to getting the best salary possible. This is in most cases - of course there are always the saints among us who could get a job in a nice area but choose to teach in the inner city because they want to make a difference. But those teachers are rare.

Third, good facilities make a good school. This comes down to money, which is determined by tax contributions as previously discussed.

So there you go.

You also asked me how we would pay for bringing up inner city schooling. Well, there are dollars spent on the federal and state level already toward this end. This is done to supplement what they get from local taxes, and the programs are already in place. I'm not in favor of doing anything radically different from what's already in place, I simply suggest we increase the funding to existing programs and appoint local education czars to see that it's appropriated correctly and that the schools continually progress according to a given set of metrics.
 

I have no idea what a Poe is, and my views are my own... I really don't care about political labels or what other conservatives believe. I agree with liberals on plenty of things, but not on this one.

You throw words like "bigot" out there pretty easily, yet I bet you can't back it up with any kind of justification. How have I said anything remotely bigoted?

I'm the farthest thing from a bigot you'll ever find, so I find that to be laughable. You claim to be conservative. Tell me this: if my hard work doesn't enable me to provide for my family any better than the single mom on welfare, what's my incentive to work hard? Luxury cars? Forget that, I work hard to provide for my family, not for shiny things. Take that away and we might as well be communists.
 

That's the opinion of the majority, but it's not everyone's opinion. Luckily, in America we have a choice. Those people who would rather have their kids learn creationism have that option. Nobody is forced to go to that school.

I will also add - it would be a good thing if more people in this country were religious. As religion fades, so does our concept of family values, and this is seen in everything from divorce statistics to the number of children being born to single mothers. As religion teaches us strong family values, it would be nice to have a little more of this in modern America.
 


Nothing is going to improve. All you're going to get is a bunch of soccer moms in their minivans having to drive 30 minutes farther to get their kids to school than they used to.

We're still working with the same basic ingredients: the same families, the same teachers, the same administrators. All you're accomplishing with this is to shuffle the deck around a little bit.
 
Hard Truth, here is some hard truth for you.
In some school districts especially in inner cities, the amount of money we taxpayers put into security just trying to make sure there will be no knife/gun fights or selling of drugs is very expensive. We have gone that route of building new schools in these areas only to see them turned into slums within a year or two. Tables/chairs broken, bathrooms destroyed, graffetti marking up the walls. Destruction of books and computers. All for not! Some areas are just not worth investing another dime if possible. But within those areas there are those who really do want to learn but are losing out because the heathens populating the school take just about every spare minute a teacher has just trying to keep order taking away precious time to present the lesson. The kids who are wanting to learn are at a disadvantage and will remain so unless they have a way out of the Hell hole they are living. The behavioral problems for the most part can be linked to those who do not have a stable home life. Many are from single mother homes and truth be known if you asked them "who's your daddy?" they wouldn't be able to answer. Others live in homes where daddy may be a junkie or mama a ho. We all know these life choices result in a life of poverty and for the most part children are not well supervised. The parents do not show a responsible example to their children. Teachers can only do so much God love them. So until you can come up with a way to make women stop having babies out of wedlock and parents engaging in things like drug abuse which all leads to a life of poverty for their children, then the best thing we can do for the children that are trapped in that situation who truly want to learn is to provide them with vouchers so that they can see for themselves and experience an atmosphere where learning is respected.
 
Last edited:

Under the proposed system, how are you going to stop the bad kids from coming to the nice suburban schools and giving them problems they don't need? That's unfair to the people who live out in the suburbs and didn't ask for those problems.


He's called Jesus.
 
I'm glad you agree with me that private schools don't provide a better education at a lower cost than public schools.





Bob Blaylock said:
To send a child to a private school, the parents have to pay the full cost of that school's tuition, on top of what they still have to pay in taxes to support the public school that they are choosing not to use.
Click to expand...
Everybody in the community pays taxes for public schools including businesses and people that have never and will never have children. To continue harping that parents have to "pay double" is pure crap. You sound like those idiots who think they get paid double-time-and-a-half for working a holiday. At best it's ignorance, at worst it's pure deception. :roll:
 
AlbqOwl said:
Cute. But again wrong.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Your scheme called for extra money to be spent on schooling. To me that spells "financial ability", not willingness.
 
Peter Grimm said:
How do you know it won't just water down the good schools?
Click to expand...

Because the parents care enough to find a better school for their child. The oft cited cause is that its the parents' fault for lack of caring, yes?
 

Show the evidence. There's nothing keeping the well performing schools under a voucher system from rejecting a student that doesn't meet minimum standards so long is there is a school available required to accept the student. That school should have much lower standards of success and it would leave the truly "bad apple" students concentrated in controllable locations, allowing the not so bad apple students freedom from their influence. If it's just for academic reasons, I think a voucher school (public) should be required to accept an under performing student for a minimum period at least in order to see if the student is capable of catching up in a better environment.
 

No, your premise is incorrect. While, I agree there is money to be made, that does not mean money to be made will improve student outcome. One way money can be made is by streamlining children. Streamlining can take on different forms. The least expensive way to streamline is to a) accept only those who have potential whether through ability or parental support or a combination of the two b) getting rid of those children who lack one or both of the above. What you create is schools with high ability children with active parental support and schools with children who struggle due to a host of issues. We basically do that now but the biggest difference between what is being pushed today and what we had is now more money being funneled away from those who need it most setting them up for failure at the gate. Instead of taking money away from the most vulnerable schools that lack resources that many wealthy schools may not even need, we should be better funding them for resources such as social services within the school. For instance, children coming from a violent/abusive background need mental health services available. If a child is experiencing PTS during the school day, shoving them in the back of a classroom where they won't distract others is not sufficient for anybody's learning experience. Now with that said, what profit making institution wants to take on that sort of clientele? It is easier for a system to streamline them to those super expensive private prisons who just happen to make a profit off the taxpayer's dime. Not really a solution.
 
joko104 said:
I suppose all but vouchers to religious church rule schools. That should not be paid by tax dollars nor a basis for tax deference or avoidance.
Click to expand...

Actually why not? This issue of separation of church and state is one of preventing any one religion from being a ruling factor in the running of the country. As long as there is no restrictions on which "religious" school are being attended (or lack of religion) then the principle is not violated. I find your view as one that goes too far in the separation of church and state.
 


great point. not unlike health insurers doing whatever is possible to only insure healthy people ... the ones they have to spend little money on
 

i have a problem with my tax dollars being used to fund indoctrination in the form of an education. public dollars should not be used to teach students that evolution is an invalid theory, that the earth is only 6000 years old, that the Bible is the infallible word of G_d. tax money should not be used to underwrite the teachings of fundamentalists, including those within the American taliban, who believe the races - and sexes - should be segregated. let them spew their crap as they have a right to do ... only not using our tax dollars to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…